If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

The above article is such a sham... didn't even feel it warranted a thorough rebuttal, just a quick laugh.

That's too bad, I'd love to hear it.

The main author Gerry Joyce is generally thought to be on the short list of future Nobel Prize winners in biology since his papers are consistently among the most cited research papers in the field. The secondary author Brain Paegel (then a graduate student) has launched his own faculty career and has already won many prestigious awards as well, including an "NIH Director's New Innovator Award" which is one of the hardest biomedical grants to get.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Not following you... did you think that Bill Nye was mocking creationism? I thought he may have erred by actually declining to rebut a lot of the more fact-deficient points of Mr. Ham, seemingly so that he could stay on his plan to actually focus on the actual debate topic, which was not about the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory but rather: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

I admit that some authors who write about evolution lack tact when they go a bit further than just detailing a lack of evidence fro creationism and make stereotypical, snide, or condescending remarks. But I think you can see from the postings of a person here that hard core anti-evolution supporters can also be rude, tactless egomaniacs unwilling to listen to anyone. Certainly compared to that type of tone, I thought that Mr. Nye was very gentle.

I don't think that young earth creationists are stupid, or evil, or even that they necessarily shouldn't have the beliefs that they have, from a faith perspective. I merely think that when they claim that their assertions are not based on faith but are rather grounded in science, they naturally have the scientific responsibility to use the currency of science, DATA, to verify their claims and to at least offer testable ideas so that other scientists can independently check to see if they have merit.

Put plainly, if you claim to be a practicing medical doctor, I'd expect you to be able to demonstrate that competency.
If you claim to be a accomplished writer, I'd expect you to be able to show me something you've written.
If you claim to be in the business of practicing science, I'd expect you to be able to show me your hypotheses, your experiments, your data, your conclusions, and what you think may be done to test your conclusions.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

I'm just saying in general. 99.9% of the time when this conversation gets going, Creationists are looked at as stupid, inferior, whatever you want to call it.

Science that we thought was the truth has been disproven throughout the history of science. Why people take science like 100% fact, when it's not supposed to represent findings that way is beyond me. We want to talk about scientific way of thinking, but rarely there's any scientific way of thinking going on. In order to be truly scientific, you would need to have an open mind. Not being able to prove something false, yet treating it as false, isn't an open mind.

I think it's fascinating that Einstein commonly used the term "God" when talking about the creation of the universe. I understand there's a difference in the way he was using the term, and the Christian God, but it's still interesting to think a man like Einstein openly discusses the possibillity, while those who follow him shun it.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

I'm arguing his 2nd, how do you create an experiment that the genetic code is created by something intelligent.

Is that something you would test in a lab? The origin of something that already exists?

As for the 3rd premise you can also argue nature created genetic code for various diseases, viruses aren't complex but they effect so much of a persons body it becomes difficult to cure, our body is not perfect, it is very fragile if you look at the various diseases and what they can do.

How can you argue this? I'm not saying you can't, but you say you can and then just mention that viruses aren't complex and human bodies are very susceptible to getting infected. What does that prove?

That's interesting. Do they have any insight as to what was happening in there to make the new generations breed more quickly?

Another example is when you try to study cells, they are stained to a particular color, called gram-staining. Some cells evolve to protect themselves against the stains, but then lose their ability to communicate.

Wait here. You say 'evolve to protect themselves'. I kind of take issue with this language because again it suggests purpose-driven change, whereas I thought this was all random?

Evolution in smaller organisms is much easier to see because of their small genome, but if you see that it took 25 years for just some bacteria evolve whose genome is much smaller than ours then you can imagine how long it will take evolution to take place in animals.

I just wanted to say that, you can believe whatever you want religious or not, but concepts based on religions do not belong in a science class, it's why I am disappointed in when some states are requiring to teach creationism in a science class, as it does follow the basic concepts of science.

I agree that religion doesn't belong in science class. I think it would be fair enough if, when teaching it to children, the teacher simply admits the barriers of current scientific knowledge on the subject, admit what they don't know, and then mention (because odds are the students are mostly coming from religious families) that many people of faith have their own concepts of what happened or is happening, but that information is beyond the scope of science and that if the kids are interested in learning more, they should either ask their families or consult their local religious leaders. I think that would be fair enough.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Not being able to prove something false, yet treating it as false, isn't an open mind.

If you are unable to prove something false because it is inherently incapable of being proven false, like something that Ken Ham would say:

"This happened because of a miracle of God. To rebut this to my satisfaction, you must prove to me that God cannot do such miracles, and furthermore the only proof that I will accept must also be written in this book that I hold in my hands, since it is the best science book ever!"

Nobody should treat such a belief as false per se, but every reasonable person, it seems to me, should treat it as a belief rather than as a scientific claim, and clearly a principle that is outside the realm of science.

As to Einstein, he was raised Jewish but considered himself an agnostic. He was asked countless times if he believed in God. One particularly answer he gave:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things...

(Later in life he was a little more direct in distancing his openness to the possibility of God existing from the view of an interventionist God):

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".

The main aspect of Einstein's views that people seem to often shun is his insistence that science and religion need not be in conflict. But who is it who shuns that idea? A lot of people of both sides of the debate. It seems to me that many creationists are at least as likely (if not more likely) to paint an evolutionary scientist as some sort of dangerous agent of the devil than many evolutionary scientists are likely to paint a creationist as stupid, inferior, whatever you want to call it. I think most scientists ignored creationists until the point where creationists claimed to be doing science and insisted on teaching their beliefs as if they were based in science.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-07-2014 at 12:16 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

The species adapts through the mechanism you guys have been discussing. The individual organism is what it is...a good fit or not, a better fit or not, the same old fit with irrelevant changes from the previous generations, whatever...but the 'evolution' is the gradual change the species goes through, as a result of the reproductive success of the 'lucky' individuals. No, there's no guiding light in this theory, reading the situation and pointing the way to a better adaptation.

Doesn't mean you can't believe in a guiding light or intelligence, but the observed changes can be accounted for by the multigenerational, adaptive 'mechanism' itself.

So you're saying I need to 'zoom out' a little bit on my perspective here, basically? Stop looking at each tree, start looking at the forest (a forest with only one kind of tree, that is)? I can appreciate that perspective. However, I still see the same thing (and I don't think you were suggesting otherwise, though I'm not entirely sure) that I saw before: The unfit dying off while the better fit keep making more of whatever their species is, resulting in more of the fit kind and less of the unfit kind. It means the species as a whole should continue to do better in said environment as long as enough fit are produced to makeup for the dying unfit. Is that adaptation? Yes and no. The species is getting better at living in its environment, but not because it did anything other than exist, as opposed to 'reading and reacting' in order to better itself. It's like the genetic version of 'guess and check', basically; throwing crap against the wall and seeing which parts stick, so to speak.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

The main author Gerry Joyce is generally thought to be on the short list of future Nobel Prize winners in biology since his papers are consistently among the most cited research papers in the field. The secondary author Brain Paegel (then a graduate student) has launched his own faculty career and has already won many prestigious awards as well, including an "NIH Director's New Innovator Award" which is one of the hardest biomedical grants to get.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

I'm just saying in general. 99.9% of the time when this conversation gets going, Creationists are looked at as stupid, inferior, whatever you want to call it.

Science that we thought was the truth has been disproven throughout the history of science. Why people take science like 100% fact, when it's not supposed to represent findings that way is beyond me. We want to talk about scientific way of thinking, but rarely there's any scientific way of thinking going on. In order to be truly scientific, you would need to have an open mind. Not being able to prove something false, yet treating it as false, isn't an open mind.

I think it's fascinating that Einstein commonly used the term "God" when talking about the creation of the universe. I understand there's a difference in the way he was using the term, and the Christian God, but it's still interesting to think a man like Einstein openly discusses the possibillity, while those who follow him shun it.

I think it's at least two problems, as I see it: There are religious folk who want their faith-based beliefs taught as science, when it's not science, and this is very irritating to most secular scientists (and I agree with them on that). Then there are non-religious folks who treat modern science like it's the end of the book on any given topic, nothing else to see here, move it along, and that's a silly attitude to have in general with regards to science because the point of science is to keep looking, keep testing, keep trying, and then make the best assumptions you can based on your evidence and experiments, but it's NOT about declaring truths, generally speaking, either, and the arrogance of secular people in this regard can be quite irritating to me.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

If you are unable to prove something false because it is inherently incapable of being proven false, like something that Ken Ham would say:

Sounds like it's also something a good scientistist would say. If you're already closing your mind to the possiblity that Creationism is correct, then you're not thinking very scientifically. You can spin it how'd you like, but the thought of someone pounding their chest about how scientific their mind works, while dismissing a notion without being able to disprove it, is funny.

Having concrete thoughts about science, and it's infallibility leads to scientistis to declare Global Cooling factual, and then Global Warming factual, and then after both theories get blown to pieces, Climate Change as factual. Once people start declaring their theory as fact, eyes start rolling.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Sure it is. Science disproves the Earth is flat. Disproves the our solar system doesn't revolve around the Earth. There are countless scientific theories that were thought to be factual, that science has disproven. Science isn't supposed to confirm theories, and treat them as
fact. Theories are supposed to be treated as theories that haven't been disproven.

Our understanding of where the universe came from, or how it was put together, is that of an ant. We aren't even in the infant stage yet. 90% of our universe is made up of dark matter, that we have no understanding of whatsoever. To declare one side right, one side wrong, regardless of where you fall, is pointless. We don't know enough information to have such concrete faith in our theories, on a scientific level.

Big Bang, Evolution, whatever doesn't come close to suggesting the idea of a Creator is false. Those theories could just merely be the answer to how a Creator created all of this. They aren't necessarily competing theories.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

(to Hicks)
Why isn't science about disproving? The whole process is more about seeking evidence that would disprove something than it is about seeking evidence that would ever prove something, IMO. The potential for being dis-provable is critical.

the test: measure the deflection during a solar eclipse (see link above)

Possible results:
one result would disprove Newton and be consistent with general relativity
another result would disprove general relativity and be consistent with Newton
any other result would disprove both theories

actual result: the deflection was consistent with general relativity, disproving Newton

Math has proofs. Emperical science though relies on the absence of disproof where disproof is possible, as strange as that may sound. General relativity has not been proven. All experiments to date have been consistent with its predictions, though, and thus it is accepted to be true.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Firstly, the idea that because DNA doesn't code for proteins, that it's irrelevant to development (junk DNA), and thus mutations involving it are meaningless, is an outdated concept. Slick should put down his musty college textbook and familiarize himself with the ENCODE Project, which released a bevy of papers (30ish) a little over a year ago detailing the findings of over a decade's worth of research.

Secondly, his point regarding most DNA not coding for proteins is irrelevant. What's important is the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations, not the exact number. Focusing solely on the 2% of of DNA which codes for proteins may lower the number of harmful mutations by 98%, but it also lowers the number of beneficial mutations by 98%, leaving us with the same issue: The number of beneficial mutations being swamped by the number of harmful mutations.

Furthermore, he's actually undermining his own position, as he's giving random mutation far fewer opportunities to produce novelty. When your entire position is based on happenstance creating brilliant technology -- and underneath all the bluster, that's what Darwinism is -- you need as many chances as you can get.

I'd wager that most people aren't entirely healthy, with everyone having at least some minor health issue. Your problem is, when you think of harmful, you're limiting it to only that which is catastrophic. This is not the case, and it's the reason why the concept of the neutral mutation fails (non-beneficial and non-catastrophic does not make something neutral). There is no such a thing as a neutral mutation, only those with varying levels of harm, from near-neutral to catastrophic. Unfortunately for Darwinists, near-neutral mutations can accumulate, producing much bigger issues. Essentially, the exact same principle behind Darwinian evolution, only from a realistic 21st-century perspective, rather than a fantasist 19th-century perspective.

If you can prove this, you will have become a hero to Darwinists, worldwide, as gains in novel function are one of the hearts of the controversy.

The above article is such a sham, that my favorite blog -- Evolution News & Views -- didn't even feel it warranted a thorough rebuttal, just a quick laugh. Looking at what these scientists did, I tend to agree.

So, they've created a front-loaded computer-controlled system (read: directed system) with a predetermined goal, and this somehow replicates evolution? Geez... their view of evolution sounds a lot closer to I.D. than to Darwinism. Methinks Slick should read these articles through a little more clearer before he posts them.

You are so downright rude and condescending. You could be the wisest person in the world but you'll never win over people to your viewpoints with such an angry disposition. It is hard to see someone that thirsts for truth when someone can't even express their viewpoints without bringing others down.

Furthermore, you're position is odd to me. You bring up the ENCODE project which is definitely an amazing achievement in molecular biology (a discipline almost entirely based around evolution and selection, btw) and yet you seem to misunderstand the very nature of "natural selection." There is no such thing as a "beneficial" or "harmful" mutation unless you add a context. For example, sickle-cell anaemia is a "harmful" mutation when applied to our society now as we have malaria cures, but the whole reason it exists is that it allowed resistance to malaria in Africa.

I'm just saying in general. 99.9% of the time when this conversation gets going, Creationists are looked at as stupid, inferior, whatever you want to call it.

Science that we thought was the truth has been disproven throughout the history of science. Why people take science like 100% fact, when it's not supposed to represent findings that way is beyond me. We want to talk about scientific way of thinking, but rarely there's any scientific way of thinking going on. In order to be truly scientific, you would need to have an open mind. Not being able to prove something false, yet treating it as false, isn't an open mind.

I think it's fascinating that Einstein commonly used the term "God" when talking about the creation of the universe. I understand there's a difference in the way he was using the term, and the Christian God, but it's still interesting to think a man like Einstein openly discusses the possibillity, while those who follow him shun it.

This is the fundamental issue. Any good scientist will throw away the belief of evolution if it is proven wrong through observation. The problem is that to date we have countless reports showing evolution to be true (well, microevolution), but there are no observational studies for creationism to be true.

I think it's at least two problems, as I see it: There are religious folk who want their faith-based beliefs taught as science, when it's not science, and this is very irritating to most secular scientists (and I agree with them on that). Then there are non-religious folks who treat modern science like it's the end of the book on any given topic, nothing else to see here, move it along, and that's a silly attitude to have in general with regards to science because the point of science is to keep looking, keep testing, keep trying, and then make the best assumptions you can based on your evidence and experiments, but it's NOT about declaring truths, generally speaking, either, and the arrogance of secular people in this regard can be quite irritating to me.

Here is the thing, though, as a scientist my job is to be impartial. I really should have no emotional attachment to my research. If there were to ever be any evidence against evolution then I would gladly take a look at it and reevaluate my trust in the theory. But I have yet to find that. You can make arguments against MACRO-evolution. Large scale evolution of all species from a common ancestor, but almost the entirety of the biomedical field is based around microevolution.

There are two things I'm noticing about this debate from a scientist perspective (agnostic) and remembering how I felt as a teenager (christian god, but very into philosophy/science);

1) People are fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanisms of natural selection. When I say survival of the "fittest," what I mean is survival of the one with the most offspring. "Fitness" in biology terms means offspring. Most people interpret that to mean, literally, survival of the biggest and strongest. That is not always the case. Mutations lead to either decreased or increased adaptability and thus mutations are context based. (I.E. my sickle cell example)

2) There is also a fundamental misunderstanding on what science actually is.

Let me also state that I don't see any real difficulty allowing both beliefs to propagate and combine. Honestly, the question of why the big bang happened is still a question no one can answer. Perhaps religion can shed some light on that because science can't at the moment. My issue is that creationism isn't a scientifically observed doctrine and as such should not be taught as science. What is creationisms solution to anti-biotic resistance of bacteria? Cancer? Alzheimers? The main goal of science education is to train students to be innovative in finding solutions to these problems.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

This is the fundamental issue. Any good scientist will throw away the belief of evolution if it is proven wrong through observation. The problem is that to date we have countless reports showing evolution to be true (well, microevolution), but there are no observational studies for creationism to be true.

Another problem is that macro-evolution is argued as fact. I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

So you're saying I need to 'zoom out' a little bit on my perspective here, basically? Stop looking at each tree, start looking at the forest (a forest with only one kind of tree, that is)? I can appreciate that perspective. However, I still see the same thing (and I don't think you were suggesting otherwise, though I'm not entirely sure) that I saw before: The unfit dying off while the better fit keep making more of whatever their species is, resulting in more of the fit kind and less of the unfit kind. It means the species as a whole should continue to do better in said environment as long as enough fit are produced to makeup for the dying unfit. Is that adaptation? Yes and no. The species is getting better at living in its environment, but not because it did anything other than exist, as opposed to 'reading and reacting' in order to better itself. It's like the genetic version of 'guess and check', basically; throwing crap against the wall and seeing which parts stick, so to speak.

Yes, in the bold font I put in your quote, that's what I was trying to express...an essentially blind but elegant mechanism trundling along...'guidance' coming only from the bumps and dips of the environment.

Now, to take it to the next inevitable step...Who designed the mechanism?? I think that will be asked / has been asked elsewhere. To me, we must remember that the forest has all the types of trees, existing simultaneously, and (zooming out again) that this evolutionary mechanism which we describe as a separate theory from all the other theories and laws is in fact one facet of the ongoing universe, working hand in glove with gravity, thermodynamics, chaos theory, you name it. All of these mechanisms working together, on all 'parts' of the universe / reality, making up this one biggest clockwork...well, that's what I would call God. But you can use whatever word you want. It is that it is. (Go Spinoza*.)

* ,,,except Spinoza beieved this God / reality to be impersonal, and I think that is not necessarily the last word on that.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Another problem is that macro-evolution is argued as fact. I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.

Well, I can't argue that as I know a lot of people make that mistake. Personally, I see the basis for it in observation, but it is fair from infallible nor is it proven. I think it definitely is a legitimate scientific theory and as such should be taught in classrooms, but I'm not going to justify people misinterpreting it and treating it as complete and utter truth. Science has no such thing as "truths."

Now microevolution is proven extensively in literature and is the basis of pretty much all research in the medical field. I use everyday in my research as do most scientists.

Now, to take it to the next inevitable step...Who designed the mechanism?? I think that will be asked / has been asked elsewhere. To me, we must remember that the forest has all the types of trees, existing simultaneously, and (zooming out again) that this evolutionary mechanism which we describe as a separate theory from all the other theories and laws is in fact one facet of the ongoing universe, working hand in glove with gravity, thermodynamics, chaos theory, you name it. All of these mechanisms working together, on all 'parts' of the universe / reality, making up this one biggest clockwork...well, that's what I would call God. But you can use whatever word you want. It is that it is. (Go Spinoza*.)

* ,,,except Spinoza beieved this God / reality to be impersonal, and I think that is not necessarily the last word on that.

A little off topic, but I know we've got some other researchers here and found this recent paper interesting. also, the question of "does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics" always comes up in these sort of debates. Pretty fascinating that the drive towards life could just be entropy. Again, the question is raised "who created entropy?" which is another question, but this sort of work is very intriguing.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.

That is progress, because by and large it is a recent development. Creationists not long ago argued that species are immutable (the ones i knew in college in the 80s, anyway) , that Noah's ark carried two leopards, two panthers, two tigers, two lions, etc., two of every species, all as creations of God.

My understanding is that many including Mr Ham now say that it is "kinds" rather than species that are immutable, that in their opinion, evolution within a kind can occur, that Noah maybe had two cats, and all the world's species of cats around today came from Noah's cats by evolution. they seem to accept that, and consider it to be microevolution.

Why the change? Maybe the sheer realization that there are so many species on Earth, roughly 8.3 million? Caring for 16.6 million beings in an Ark seems difficult for Noah and his kids, and space-consuming! Another reason- it's pretty obvious that things like bacteria do evolve, as you can see it happen in real time.

The main element of difference between micro and macroevolution is the element of time. That's why the difference between 6,000 years and 13,700,000,000 years as the age of the universe is important. When two estimates of anything differ by a factor of 23 million, that gap is bound to be important.

Also the difference between between micro and macroevolution seems somewhat arbitrary. Through microevolution, Noah's cats led to all of the cat species we have today, if they are of the same kind, according to Mr. ham as I understand it. But of course humans and chimpanzees are definitely not of the same kind, they would argue. We are special, in the image of God.

But... it seems likely to me that if one studied the DNA of all cats on Earth, you would find two species of cats with less DNA in common than a man and a chimp, meaning that they are more distantly related, meaning that either man and chimp are of the same "kind" or that the whole idea of a kind needs some adjusting.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-07-2014 at 03:31 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Also the difference between between micro and macroevolution seems somewhat arbitrary. Through microevolution, Noah's cats led to all of the cat species we have today, if they are of the same kind, according to Mr. ham as I understand it. But of course humans and chimpanzees are definitely not of the same kind, they would argue. We are special, in the image of God.

But... it seems likely to me that if one studied the DNA of all cats on Earth, you would find two species of cats with less DNA in common than a man and a chimp, meaning that they are more distantly related, meaning that either man and chimp are of the same "kind" or that the whole idea of a kind needs some adjusting.

That was going to be the direction I was going to go. Through these types of discussions, the little I've read, and the programming that I've come across, I've never gotten a good explanation on where the lines between micro and macro are. When I see the fossil record of humans, to me all I see is a bunch of human skulls with variations.

Then I see articles like this one, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...uman-evolution , makes me think "how is it possible that one new finding can completely change the thought process?" To me, it seems like the theory hasn't been flushed out all that well, because I fully expect there to be all kinds of fossil records out there that we have no clue about. Modern scientists to me, seem so conceded. It's all about being the first one to throw out your theory, to get credit, forget if there's any real evidence behind it. We take half the story (hell, not even half but a small sliver), argue that it's the the truth, and then worry about new evidence and how it will plug in later or work like there won't be any new evidence. Then we mock and chastise who don't fall into line with the new way of thinking.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

We think that 99.9 percent of all species that every lived are extinct, and that relatively few spots on Earth have the right geology and climate to even show much of a fossil record for much of its history, so most knowledge of the 99.9% is lost. Can we piece together 1% of it? Maybe Thus we have a lot of gaps, of course, and we know that we will always have a lot of gaps. It's exciting to see new discoveries fill some of the gaps, and very often what was discovered was predicted to exist in the gap.

Understanding the entire web of speciation on Earth is kind of like asking you to tell me what my car looks like by giving you 1% of its pieces. Anyone who is really confident of having the whole answer is pretty simply a lying fool.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

A little off topic, but I know we've got some other researchers here and found this recent paper interesting. also, the question of "does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics" always comes up in these sort of debates. Pretty fascinating that the drive towards life could just be entropy. Again, the question is raised "who created entropy?" which is another question, but this sort of work is very intriguing.

So we'll be seeing more on England's work...seems like a lot of folks are trying to put his theory to the test. Finding the point, or mechanism, wherein the step is made from non-life form to life form? Nothing if not ambitious, and very much on-topic evolution-wise. Right now, I'm getting Lysenkoism vibes....inheritability of acquired characteristics being a fallacy...but he's not even talking about reproducing organisms, at least to start with, so to speak. Instead it's self-organizing, self-replicating groupings of matter...thanks for the link. I'll be staying tuned.

Re: Who created entropy? We can always go back another step. Who created God? What was before the big bang? The notion of an eternity without beginning or end (amen) just seems to make many people intellectually uncomfortable....but per omnia saecula saeculorum,eh? Works for me.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

As to the point of modern science seeming to be conceited, pompous, arrogant, however you want to put it. People tend to overestimate the sphere of what it is they know to be true. Human nature I guess, and the more inflated that sphere seems to be, the more annoying it is. many authors seem to go there, and more annoyingly take unjustified shots at those making a counterargument.

But getting back to the debaters, Bll Nye and Ken Ham, Nye was perfectly willing to say "We just don't know the answer to that!".

It was Ham who was Mr. know-it-all. He had all the answers and was 100% sure of it. How is that not conceited / pompous / arrogant to the nth degree? Here's all your answers! Stop looking, you fools! And stop making our kids look too!

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-07-2014 at 06:19 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.

Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

They didn't give it a lengthy rebuttal because it didn't warrant a lengthy rebuttal. Their short-and-to-the-point rebuttal was all that was needed to show the enormous flaws with the paper. It didn't show what they (or you) claimed it did.

The main author Gerry Joyce is generally thought to be on the short list of future Nobel Prize winners in biology since his papers are consistently among the most cited research papers in the field. The secondary author Brain Paegel (then a graduate student) has launched his own faculty career and has already won many prestigious awards as well, including an "NIH Director's New Innovator Award" which is one of the hardest biomedical grants to get.

With all due respect to Gerald Joyce and Brian Paegel, this says far more about the sad state of origin of life research than it does about the brilliance of their work. They are, apparently, the best of an underwhelming bunch. That's what happens when an entire field commits itself to dogma; you limit possible explanations, and, thus, place science in an ideological straightjacket.